SolarTexans.com

Texas extended its already formidable national lead in wind power by clearing the way Thursday for a major expansion of the state’s electrical power transmission network, valued at nearly $5 billion, a move that will triple its current wind power capacity.

The preliminary approval from the Public Utility Commission of Teaxs (PUCT) effectively green-lights tens of billions of dollars more in wind development investment and will supply the state with more than 18,00 megawatts of additional wind power.

The decision consolidates Texas as “the epicenter of land-based wind energy development in North America,if not the world,” said Commision Chairman Barry Smitherman in a statement. (MORE…)

Wonder why we don’t have a national energy policy or a serious push toward alternatives?

Follow the money that oil and gas companies send to Congress.

By Jim JubakThink it’s a matter of chance that we don’t have a meaningful national energy policy? Wondering why oil and gas companies don’t pay higher royalties to the Treasury now that oil is over $55 a barrel? Amazed that Washington loves to talk about energy research with promise 15 years down the road, but won’t put significant money into alternative technologies that could reduce energy consumption now?

For answers to all those questions and more, just follow the money. Nothing about U.S. energy policy should be a surprise if you know where the money’s been going and which legislators have taken the biggest payouts from the energy industry. So don’t miss your only chance in the next two years — the Nov. 7 election — to tell Congress what you think of its sellout to the energy companies.

It has become increasingly expensive to run for national office, and any politician who wants to win has to raise big bucks these days. In the 2006 election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission, as of Oct. 20, challengers and incumbents running for the House of Representatives had raised $713 million for their campaigns. Those for Senate had raised $452 million. And these figures don’t include any of the money raised by “independent” organizations, so-called 527 groups such as Emily’s List on the left ($9.6 million raised) or Club for Growth on the right ($6.2 million raised).

Lawyers top contributor list

Corporations and affiliated individuals have coughed up a big chunk of that money. By industry, the top honor on the giving roll goes to lawyers and law firms, with $89 million contributed, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which describes itself as nonpartisan and nonprofit. As the Republicans have said in campaign after campaign, the bulk of that — 69% to 30% — has gone to Democrats. But the Republicans don’t need to worry; there’s plenty of money coming into their till from other industries. Second place goes to the retirement industry with $86 million (54% goes to Republicans). Third place? The real estate industry with $53 million (57% goes to Republicans.)The oil and gas industry comes in at No. 15 with $14 million in contributions.

The top five contributors were Koch Industries, ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), Valero Energy (VLO, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and Occidental Petroleum (OXY, news, msgs), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

That $14 million puts the oil and gas industry in the company of such heavyweights as electric utilities (at $12 million) and the pharmaceutical industry (at $14 million).

Most energy money goes to GOP

The oil and gas industry’s giving is highly, highly focused. Oil and gas executives seem to feel that with the Republicans in solid control of Congress, there’s no need to give to anybody but Republicans, since they’re the folks that can get things done. There’s none of the fence straddling of the securities industry, which has divided its $46 million in contributions almost evenly between Republicans (47%) and Democrats (51%). A whopping 83% of oil and gas money has gone to Republicans in this election cycle. To find similar imbalance, you have to look at such Democratic bulwarks as the public-sector unions, 84% Democratic in their giving, and the building trades unions, at 83% Democratic.So who did this concentrated dose of cash go to? Here are the top 10 — all Republicans — as complied by the Center for Responsive Politics:

Data from the FEC as of Sept. 11, 2006. Compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

You’ve got to hand it to the oil and gas industry. They know how to support their favorite sons and daughters, of course: Texans Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn, after all, are both senators from a big oil state.

But the industry keeps its eye on the prize. If you want to keep oil and gas royalties low; if you’d like to drill in environmentally sensitive areas; if you want to keep the government from admitting that global warming might exist; if you want to make sure that money flows to research in alternative energy technologies for the future but not to commercialize alternative technologies today, then you give to the key people who can get those jobs done.

So you contribute to the campaign of California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee in charge of deciding how the oil and gas (and other industries) can use government land and how much they’ll pay for that use. Pombo has been a point man in the House in efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

(The committee’s jurisdiction also extends to gambling on Indian lands. Pombo and his personal political action committee, known as Rich PAC, reportedly are being investigated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Indian tribes paid Abramoff and his lobbying firm big fees in exchange for promises he would get favorable rulings from lawmakers and members of the executive branch on their casino plans.)

Pombo is also involved in my favorite bit of election-year irony. He has been criticized for lobbying then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton to suspend regulations opposed by the wind-power industry because his parents collect sizable royalties from windmills on their ranch. Pombo, his critics have noted, has a personal interest in the ranch. So who should Pombo face in the 2006 election? Democrat Jerry McNerney, a wind-power engineer and CEO of a start-up wind-turbine manufacturer.

The oil and gas industry also gives heavily to Texas Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; to Sens. James Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia, all of whom sit on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; to Illinois’ Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, who plays a huge role in deciding what legislation moves to the floor for a vote and what doesn’t; and to Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum, head of the Senate Republican Conference and announced candidate for Republican whip in 2006 if he wins re-election.

Control of Congress up in air

Among the top 10 recipients of oil and gas money, Pombo, Talent, Burns and Santorum face stiff races for re-election this year. That, plus the possibility of a shift in control of one or both houses of Congress from Republican to Democratic, creates some interesting angles for investors interested in playing potential changes in U.S. energy policy as the biases of Republican incumbents yield to the biases of Democratic replacements.Sometimes it’s hard to tell exactly what the effect might be. So for example, a shift in control of the House of Representatives would be likely to unseat Barton as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Barton is a lock in his re-election. The incumbent has raised $2.7 million to Democratic challenger David Harris’ $22,000. Harris had $932 in his campaign treasury as of Oct. 20.)

Barton has been one of the fiercest congressional critics of global-warming theories. At a recent congressional hearing, he said, “As long as I am chairman, (regulating the gases that produce global warming) is off the table indefinitely. I don’t want there to be any uncertainty about that.” But Barton’s likely replacement would be John Dingell, D-Mich., a fierce advocate for the U.S. automobile industry.

In other cases, the effect of the change is easier to extrapolate. Pombo’s likely replacement as chairman of the House Resources Committee would be Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. Can you say “coal,” boys and girls?

Money and politics go hand in hand

No matter how the elections turn out this year, of course, the connection between money and politicians will survive. Incumbents of both parties know that taking the money out of politics — I mean, really taking it out — would destroy one of most effective tools they have for assuring their own re-election. Taking the money out of campaigns is less likely than the Easter Bunny passing out eggs in January.So vote your convictions. Throw this year’s bums out. They certainly deserve it. Then watch to see which newly elected politicians start quickly to work to become next year’s bums.

And always remember the great American humorist Finley Peter Dunne’s advice: “Trust everybody, but cut the cards.”

Dear Friend,

Recently, President Bush delivered what was billed as a major
speech on global warming.

What a disaster! Rather than staking out a set of ambitious
goals for America to strive for, the President argued that the
United States should do nothing about global warming until 2025.

That’s completely irresponsible — and President Bush needs to
hear it.

Senator Barbara Boxer is going to deliver a petition to the
White House, demanding that President Bush stand up and join the
fight to stop global warming. I hope you’ll join me and add your
name to the petition by clicking on the link below:

http://ga6.org/campaign/bush_gw?rk=v7d3sw1qb7kRW

and feel free to use strong language

-Tim Padden
House of Solar

Texas net metering call with Rob Styler and Erika Morgan

(LINK)

This call was held in response to new interpretation of the net metering laws in Texas. The Public Utilities Commission has decided to apply a meaning to the description of net metering that is not held by 30+ other states. Basically they now leave the decisions around Net Metering up to the Utilities .This is why is is so important for the citizens of this state and this country to be on alert and involved. I do hold the belief that this is OUR state and laws should be passed for the benefit of the majority and not a small powerful minority. This will never happen while the decision are left to a few and people just sit on their hands and hope.

Tim Padden
RSD -Texas

Take Action

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Imagine hundreds of thousands of calls flooding Congressional phone lines.That is what LCV and our coalition partners plan to generate today—Earth Day—to demand action on global warming.

As the global warming crisis continues to worsen, Congress still has not passed any comprehensive legislation to solve it. That is why the League of Conservation Voters has partnered with the Earth Day Network on the Call for Climate campaign to generate an unprecedented number of calls to Congress this Earth Day to issue a wake-up call that they can’t ignore.

Will you take a few minutes to add your voice to this extraordinary effort?

Here is the information you need to take action:

The way to protect your world is my creating change from the bottom u. Feel free to pass this along to your friends . Today we can make a statement.

Tim Padden
RSD Citizenre

Round Rock-based Dell announced Wednesday it will use green energy to power its entire Austin headquarters.

Also Online

Project Green

The computer company said it gets 40 percent of its power from Waste Management’s Austin Community Landfill gas-to-energy plant. The rest comes from wind farms.

The company declined to say how much it will pay for the renewable power.

The contract is for 80 million kilowatt hours a year. Typically renewable power credits cost around half a cent per kilowatt hour, meaning Dell could pay about $400,000 extra to run on renewable power rather than fossil fuel or nuclear power.

More than 10,000 employees work at the 2.1 million square-foot Dell headquarters.

“It’s time for our industry to take a lead role in creating a clean energy future,” said Paul Bell, president of Dell Americas in a media release.

A facility in Twin Falls, Idaho is also completely green-powered.

Dell also said it will increase green power from eight to 17 percent at the Austin Parmer Campus. Previously, 8 percent of the campus’ power came from renewable sources.

The company said it is the latest step in meeting a 2008 carbon neutral commitment made last year.

Dell expects the renewable power to become cheaper than fossil fuel electricity during the next three years, saving the company almost $2 million per year and cutting carbon dioxide emissions by almost 12,000 tons.

—-

The Dallas Morning News contributed to this report

By R.A. DYER

rdyer@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — Proposed regulations relating to the installation of renewable-energy-producing devices at homes and businesses could stymie the development of solar power in Texas, a coalition of conservation groups are warning.

The regulations — some of which are up for consideration by the Texas Public Utility Commission today, and some later in the year — would establish broad guidelines for how the state’s deregulated electric market treats consumers and businesses that invest in solar panels, small windmills or related devices.

A coalition of conservation groups complained Tuesday that the rules would require the acquisition of expensive redundant meters for those who invest in solar panels and hope to be compensated for the excess electricity that would potentially flow back into the state’s power grid.

Preliminary rules also leave open the possibility that those who generate power through solar panels or small windmills would not be compensated properly — or at all — according to the conservation groups.

“These rules protect the utility companies by shifting all the cost of solar power to the customers while giving consumers none of the benefits,” said Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The three-member PUC is set to consider some of the regulations today. The second set of regulations, which would govern a broad set of related issues, remains in preliminary form and won’t go before the PUC for weeks.

All the proposed regulations relate to House Bill 3693, an energy efficiency bill authored by state Rep. Joe Strauss, R-San Antonio, during the 2007 legislative session. Reed said the preliminary rules set forth by the PUC staff do not conform to the spirit of the law. Strauss was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

But Steve Davis, president of the Alliance for Retail Markets, said the electric company umbrella group supports the staff’s proposed regulations as they relate to the installation of meters for so-called distributive renewable generation, such as rooftop solar panels.

Under HB 3693, “an electric utility shall make available . . . separate meters that measure the load and generator output, or a single meter capable of measuring inflow and outflow.” The law also states that “the distributed renewable generation owner must pay the differential cost of the metering, unless the meters are provided at no additional cost.”

Davis said it’s important to have a method that measures the influx of power into a home or business and another that measures power that potentially flows from solar panels, windmills, or other renewable-energy sources.

Davis noted that the value of the energy flowing in to a home or business and the value of the energy flowing out can be different — depending on factors such as the time of day when the power is produced. That’s why it’s not enough to have a meter that moves both backward and forward, he said.

“The value of the energy that comes in and the value of the energy that comes out are not always one in the same,” he said. “We have to be sure that we’re getting compensated [properly] for our energy that is consumed on the premises.”

He said his organization had not yet formulated positions on others aspects of the pending rules.

Chris Schein, a spokesman for Oncor, which operates the North Texas transmission system, said the company will roll out advanced meters over the next several years that can measure the net power to and from homes and businesses. He said that a separate regulation calls for customers to pay for the meters through a surcharge on bills.

House Bill 3693 calls for regulators to have the rules in place by Jan. 1, according to a PUC spokesman.

R.A. Dyer reports from the Star-Telegram’s Austin bureau. 512-476-4294

Special Alert: Net Metering in Texas at Jeopardy!

Yesterday, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) released a proposed rule in its net metering proceeding. Unfortunately, what started out in legislation as an incentive program for on-site generation is turning into a set of rules that may make it very disadvantageous for Texans to self-generate renewable on-site generation. The PUCT’s proposed rule goes to great lengths to make sure that Texas utilities (TDUs) are compensated for all line charges associated with on-site generation and for whatever metering the TDUs choose to install, including up to two IDR meters on systems over 50 kW. On the other hand, the proposed rule refuses to provide any guarantee that a distributed generation (DG) owner will receive any compensation or credit for energy delivered to the grid. In IREC’s opinion, in the practice of over 35 states and under U.S. code, this is not metering. (IREC is the Interstate Renewable Energy Council)

The PUCT’s net metering proceeding will produce two related rules. The proposed rule released yesterday deals with metering and is being decided on an expedited basis. The PUCT has scheduled an open meeting for March 26^th for interested people to comment on the proposed rule. On the same day, comments will be due on the remaining portion of the net metering rules. Although both are important, the open meeting will be taking up key issues that are key to determining what net metering will mean in Texas. IREC calls on supporters of on-site generation to attend this meeting and voice their concerns. Go to http://www.puc.state.tx.us/calendar/calendar.cfm for more information.

The following summarizes the contents of the proposed rule and the proposed order that accompanies the proposed rule:

Most disturbing, the proposed order determines that netting over a billing period is not consistent with H.B. 3693, the legislation that set the net metering proceeding in motion. This is quite ironic considering that net metering is universally understood as netting over a billing period. According to the proposed decision, “net metering” has various applications in other markets and often refers to “retail roll backs” or “banking” whereby a meter runs backwards. Because H.B. 3693 does not include these concepts and stipulates that metering must be capable of measuring in-flows and out-flows, the proposed order reasons that net metering as it is universally understood is not what the legislature had in mind for Texas. This reasoning ignores comments by IREC and others that meter readings for in-flows and out-flows can be netted to accomplish net metering and that this is in fact the way net metering is accomplished in many states. The commission appears to have been convinced by the utilities that H.B. 3693 can’t possibly call for net metering unless it states that meters should spin forwards and backwards.

The commission also concludes that “[a]bsent the ability to quantify out-flows, there is no basis for the DRGO and REP to determine when the energy is made available and arrive at the time value of this energy in the wholesale market.”  The commission appears to misunderstand its own market. An end of month out-flow reading does not provide any information as to when energy was put on the grid. Nevertheless, the commission uses this as further justification that under H.B. 3693 “it is not sufficient merely to quantify the difference between in-flows and out-flows.” Ignoring the fact that IREC and others have agreed that in-flows and out-flows should be measured, but also netted, the commission nevertheless concludes that a requirement that out-flows be measured is proof that net metering isn’t consistent with H.B. 3693 and therefore no netting should occur.

Following this illogical and seemingly result driven reasoning, the commission concludes that the proposed rule should not include the term “net metering service” because “use of the them ‘net metering service’ could be confusing.” IREC agrees. Use of the term “net metering” in the proceeding’s title has confused IREC into thinking that the proceeding would result in net metering rules.

Also in the proposed order, the commission determines – without providing any justification – that the term “out-flow” and “surplus electricity” are synonymous when used in H.B. 3693 and therefore the commission will use the term “surplus electricity” in instead of the term “out-flow” in the rule. The result is that DG owners will not have to be paid or credited anything for energy put on the grid. This flies in the face of H.B. 3693, which uses the term “out-flow” in the metering section and “surplus electricity” in the retail settlement section. It is a tenant of statutory interpretation that when the legislature uses different terms, it is assumed that the legislature means different things. Ignoring this tenant, the commission’s interpretation substitutes the term surplus electricity for the term out-flow, which had the undesirable effect of suggesting that the legislature was referring to out-flows.

The proposed rule also rejects IREC’s argument that TDUs should be required to install the lowest cost metering capable of measuring in-flows and out-flows consistent with H.B. 3693. Instead, the proposed rule specifies that TDUs may provide up to two interval demand recorders (IDR meters) for systems over 50 kW, despite the fact that a second IDR recorder would be redundant and unnecessary. For customers below 50 kW, a TDU may, at its discretion, install one or two meters of undetermined type with all cost to be paid by the DG owner. The proposed rules even suggest that a TDU may have discretion to install up to two meters for DG customers even if they do not want to measure energy delivered to the grid. This is particularly distressing given that DG owners may not be paid anything for energy put on the grid.

As an additional gift to the utilities, the commission will allow TDUs to assess line charge on all in-flows as opposed to netting in-flows and out-flows as is done in net metering programs in many other states. Despite the fact that H.B. 3693 is completely silent on this issue, the proposed order dismisses IREC’s argument for TDU charge netting as inconsistent with H.B. 3693.

 Maybe its time to let the PUC know how important net metering is to the future of Texas and renewable energy

PUC Commissioners

Barry Smitherman Chairman

Julie Caruthers Parsley Commissioner

Paul Hudson Commissioner

paul.hudson@puc.state.tx.us
barry.smitherman@puc.state.tx.us
julie.parsley@puc.state.tx.us

Written by Philip Proefrock
Tuesday, 18 March 2008

Lots of people are getting excited about all the various technologies for using biofuels of one sort or another as a replacement for fossil fuels, and they may present a short-term option. But looking at the various kinds of energy production that are possible gives some insight into the best directions to promote in terms of developing long-term efficient energy production.

A study cited on EV World makes a comparison between different crop- and direct-production methods of generating energy in terms of miles per acre per year, with some eye-opening information.

At the bottom end of the scale is soybean biodiesel, which can provide only 2,400 miles per acre per year. Corn ethanol is more than six times as efficient, yielding 18,000 miles per acre per year. But because of the relatively slow rate of production from plant-based fuels, these options far fall below the productivity of directly produced energy.

The same acre can produce 10 times as much energy from wind as it can from corn ethanol, 180,000 miles per acre per year. But both corn ethanol and wind power pale in comparison with solar photovoltaic, which can produce more than 2 million miles worth of transport per acre per year.

This is not to completely dismiss biofuels out-of-hand. The cost of an acre’s worth of solar PV arrays is far more than 100 times more expensive than planting an acre of corn. Many biofuels can be produced on marginal lands that are ill-suited for solar. And cellulosic ethanol can even be produced from waste, effectively making it a zero land-use fuel. And presumably the comparisons are based on sites that are optimal for each mode of generation. A site that is highly suitable for harvesting wind energy may not be a good site for growing corn, and vice versa.

The infrastructure and the existing “car parc” (the entire fleet of all vehicles in the country) is also going to take decades to turn over to the point where a significant proportion of the vehicles on the road are electric vehicles. Both a mix of energy sources and regionally appropriate choices need to be part of a comprehensive energy plan. But this offers a useful comparison that suggests where the best allocation of resources should be focused in terms of long-range planning for our energy future.

————————

Biofuels versus Solar
Lutz’s identification of ‘electric’ car technology as the top priority program at GM may prove prescient if 2006 turns out to be the year world crude oil production peaked. Assuming we are in for a gradual, but steady decline in oil production over the coming decade, the focus on electric drive and related energy efficiency technologies will be critical in more ways than we may think.

With the declining availability of once vast reserves of ancient sunlight we’ve been pulling out of the ground at breakneck speeds, future generations are going to have to rely increasingly on the available sunlight that falls on the planet each day either in the form of biomass-based fuels (biodiesel and ethanol) or on electricity generated by the wind or directly from sunlight.

Five Star Consultants’ Ken Regelson recently did a study that examined these alternatives from the perspective of “yield in miles driven per acre of land per year.” The results are pretty amazing and fall in line with a similar study done in Germany and published in Photon International. See Drive Further on Sunlight.

Obviously, the most efficient way to move a vehicle when measured in use of land area is converting sunlight directly into electricity to run electric cars, everything else with the exception of biodiesel derived from algae, pales by comparison.